Disposed

Manikavasagam v. Mr.Dr.R.Vaithinathan

Madras HC7 Sept 2023CONT P(MD)/1139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt petition filed against the Commissioner alleging willful disobedience of an order relating to the petitioner's promotion. The court held that since no specific direction for immediate promotion was given in the earlier order, the petitioner must approach the court through a proper questionability of the rejection order rather than by way of contempt.

What did the court decide?

contempt petition closed without directions

Manikavasagam Vs Mr.Dr.R.Vaithinathan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

1 CONT.P.(MD)NO.1139 OF 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.09.2023

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

CONT.P.(MD)No.1139 of 2023 IN W.P.(MD)No.18520 of 2021

¶6

Manikavasagam, S/o.Late R.Perumal, Revenue Inspector(Special), K.Abishekapuram Zone, Trichy City Municipal Corporation, Trichy. ... Petitioner / Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Dr.R.Vaithinathan,I.A.S., Commissioner and Special Officer, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli. ... Contemnor / 3^rd Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Contempt petition filed under under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971,to punish the contemnor / 3^rd respondent herein for willful disobedience of the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in W.P.(MD)No.18520 of 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.R.Baskaran, Senior Counsel, for M/s.R.B.Associates.

¶12

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/4

¶15

2 CONT.P.(MD)NO.1139 OF 2023

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Contending that the order passed by this Court has been breached, this contempt petition came to be filed.

¶18

The petitioner seeks promotion to the post of

¶19

Assistant Revenue Officer. The petitioner's request was negatived vide order dated 23.04.2021. The said order was set aside by me. However, I had not given any direction for straightaway promoting the petitioner. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by me in the following terms:-

¶20

“ 6. The aforesaid G.O has not been

¶21

taken note of by the respondents. The order impugned in this writ petition is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the third respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. The third respondent will take note of the order dated 03.09.2012 made in W.P.(MD)No.11555 of 2008 and the G.O (Ms) No.211 Municipal Administration

¶22

and Water Supply Department dated 21.09.1999. Such an order will be passed

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/4

¶25

3 CONT.P.(MD)NO.1139 OF 2023

¶26

within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Connected

¶27

miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

¶28

Pursuant to the direction, the respondents have

¶29

gone into the issue and once again negatived the petitioner's request. The petitioner has to necessarily question the rejection order in the manner known to law. With this liberty to the petitioner, this contempt petition is closed.

¶30

07.09.2023

¶31

NCS : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No

¶32

PMU

¶33

To:

¶34

The Commissioner and Special Officer, Tiruchirappalli City Corporation, Tiruchirappalli.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/4

¶37

4 CONT.P.(MD)NO.1139 OF 2023

¶38

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶39

PMU

¶40

CONT.P.(MD)No.1139 of 2023 IN W.P.(MD)No.18520 of 2021

¶41

07.09.2023

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/4

Manikavasagam v. Mr.Dr.R.Vaithinathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikavasagam v. Mr.Dr.R.Vaithinathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vinayaga Hardware and Electricals Vs Pandi alias Karuppasami

S.Rajendran Vs Mrs.I.S.Mercy Ramya I.A.S.

Saravanan.P Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G. Rajagopal Vs the District Collector

N. Thaha Khan Vs the District Collector

T. Venkatesan Vs the Assistant Divisional